BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

94 results for “reassessment”+ Section 201(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi589Mumbai354Bangalore292Chennai204Jaipur117Ahmedabad94Kolkata55Chandigarh44Visakhapatnam36Pune35Cuttack31Rajkot29Hyderabad28Raipur28Cochin24Amritsar19Jodhpur17Surat12Patna12Indore12Lucknow11Dehradun8Karnataka7Guwahati5Nagpur5Panaji4Allahabad3SC3Telangana3Agra2Uttarakhand1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 13244Addition to Income36Section 14733Section 80I24Section 143(3)23Section 1122Section 26321Section 2(15)20Section 14817Exemption

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3367/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 3367/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit Gujarat State Electricity बनाम/ Circle-1(1) Corporation Ltd. V/S. Baroda Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (&' यथ$/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115WSection 44A

reassessment under section 115WE(3) read with section 115WG, determining the value of fringe benefits at Rs.3,68,94,408/-. This included an addition of Rs.90,38,760/- for expenses related to "use of health club and similar facilities," which were assessed at 50% instead of the 20% claimed by the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

17
Deduction13
Reassessment12

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 45/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 42/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1903/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1900/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1902/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1901/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 31/AHD/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1908/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1912/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 33/AHD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 40/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1899/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 46/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1915/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 49/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

ITA 34/AHD/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 1907/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 50/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

201(3) of the Act and the amended provision was not made expressly with retrospective effect. 47. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) was analyzed by the Bombay bench of the ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai - Trib